On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION update_tab() RETURNS void AS $$ >> BEGIN >> INSERT INTO tab VALUES (0); >> FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP >> UPDATE tab SET x = x + 1; >> END LOOP; >> END >> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; > > I believe that none of the dead row versions can be vacuumed during this > test.
Yep, you seem to be right. The table grows to 802 pages. But why is it that we can't vacuum them as we go along? > So yes, it sucks, but is it representative of real-world cases? Hard to say, but I think it probably is to some degree. I stumbled on it more-or-less by accident, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are people doing such things in real applications. It's not uncommon to want to store an updateable counter somewhere. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
